Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 158, Issue 2, pp 381–390 | Cite as

Costs of exclusive male parental care in the sea spider Achelia simplissima (Arthropoda: Pycnogonida)

  • Zair P. BurrisEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Sea spiders are one of the few marine invertebrates whose males care exclusively for offspring. The costs of parental care, however, have never been addressed for any species of pycnogonid. Costs may be significant for brooding sea spiders of Achelia simplissima, since males carry up to 12 egg masses simultaneously and actively aerate those eggs by moving their ovigerous legs back and forth. This study explored four potential costs to males as a result of parental care: predation, dislodgment, movement and feeding patterns, and frequency of epibionts. Brooding males were found to experience significantly higher frequencies of predator attacks and epibionts, as well as a lower rate of movement compared with nonbrooding males. Interestingly, brooding males were harder to dislodge than nonbrooding males and experienced no change in feeding frequency as a result of parental care. This is the first study to provide evidence that parental care may be costly for male pycnogonids in terms of individual survival and future reproductive success.

Keywords

Parental Care Gravid Female Potential Predator Paternal Care Water Speed 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Joshua Lord, Svetlana Maslakova, Craig Young, Brian Bingham, and Alan Shanks for advice and editing suggestions. This study was supported by the National Science Foundation (GK-12 grant number DGE-0638731).

References

  1. Bain BA (2003) Larval types and a summary of postembryonic development within the pycnogonids. J Invertebr Reprod Dev 43:193–222Google Scholar
  2. Balshine-Earn S (1995) The costs of parental care in Galilee St. Peter’s fish, Sarotherodon galilaeus. Anim Behav 50:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barreto FS, Avise JC (2008) Polyandry and sexual size dimorphism in the sea spider Ammothea hilgendorfi (Pycnogonida: Ammotheidae), a marine arthropod with brood carrying males. Mol Ecol 17:4164–4175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bateman AJ (1948) Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 2:349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burris ZP (2010) Larval morphologies and potential developmental modes of eight sea spider species (Arthropoda: Pycnogonida) from the southern Oregon coast. J Mar Biol Assoc UK (in press)Google Scholar
  6. Buschbaum C, Reise K (1999) Effects of barnacle epibionts on the periwinkle Littorina littorea. Helgol Mar Res 53:56–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Child A (1992) Shallow water Pycnogonida of the Gulf of Mexico. Mem Hourglass Cruises 9:1–86Google Scholar
  8. Clutton-Brock TH (1991) The evolution of parental care. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  9. Cole LJ (1904) Pycnogonida of the west coast of North America. Doubleday, Page & Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Dayton PK (1973) Dispersion, dispersal, and persistence of the annual intertidal alga Postelsia palmaeformis Ruprecht. Ecology 54:433–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forsgren E (1997) Female sand gobies prefer good fathers over dominant males. Biol Sci 264:1283–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forsgren E, Karlsson A, Kvarnemo C (1996) Female sand gobies gain direct benefits by choosing males with eggs in their nests. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 39:91–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibbons JW (1986) Movement patterns among turtle populations: applicability to management of the desert tortoise. Herpetol 42:104–113Google Scholar
  14. Gomendio M, Garcia-Gonzalez F, Reguera P, Rivero A (2008) Male egg carrying in Phyllomorpha laciniata is favoured by natural not sexual selection. Anim Behav 75:763–770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Howard RD (1980) Mating behavior and mating success in woodfrogs Rana sylvatica. Anim Behav 28:705–716CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hunt RE, Nault LR (1991) Roles of interplant movement, acoustic communication, and phototaxis in mate-location behavior of the leafhopper Graminella nigrifrons. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 28:315–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keenleyside MHA (1979) Diversity and adaptation in fish behavior. Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  18. King PE (1973) Pycnogonids. St. Martin’s Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Kleiman DG (1977) Monogamy in mammals. Q Rev Biol 52:39–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knapp RA, Sargent RC (1989) Egg-mimicry as a mating strategy in the fantail darter, Etheostoma flabellare: females prefer males with eggs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 25:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuris AM, Wickham DE (1987) Effect of nemertean egg predators on crustaceans. Bull Mar Sci 41:151–164Google Scholar
  22. Lack D (1968) The proportion of yolk in the eggs of waterfowl. Wildfowl 19:67–69Google Scholar
  23. MacDiarmid AB, Hickey B, Maller RA (1991) Daily movement patterns of the spiny lobster Jasus Edwards (Hutton) on a shallow reed in northern New Zealand. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 147:185–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manica A, Johnstone RA (2004) The evolution of paternal care with overlapping broods. Am Nat 164:517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McRae WA, Landers JL, Garner JA (1981) Movement patterns and home range of the gopher tortoise. Am Midl Nat 106:165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nazareth TM, Machado G (2010) Mating system and exclusive postzygotic paternal care in a neotropical harvestman (Arachnida: Opiliones). Anim Behav 79:547–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paine RT (1979) Disaster, catastrophe, and the local persistence of the sea palm, Postelsia palmaeformis. Science 205:685–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ridley M (1978) Paternal Care. Anim Behav 26:904–932CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ridley M, Rechten C (1981) Female sticklebacks prefer to spawn with males whose nests contain eggs. Behav 76:152–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schwarzkopf L, Shine R (1992) Costs of reproduction in lizards: escape tactics and susceptibility to predation. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 31:17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shine R (1980) “Costs” of reproduction in reptiles. Oecologia 46:92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith CJ, Wootton RJ (1994) The cost of parental care in Haplochromis ‘argens’ (Cichlidae). Environ Biol Fishes 40:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomas RH, Zeh DW (1984) Sperm transfer and utilization strategies in arachnids: ecological and morphological constraints. In: Smith RL (ed) Sperm competition and the evolution of animal mating systems. Academic Press, New York, pp 179–221Google Scholar
  34. Thornhill R (1976) Sexual selection and nuptial feeding behavior in Bittacus apicalis (Insecta: Mecoptera). Am Nat 110:529–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Torchin ME, Lafferty KD, Kuris AM (1996) Infestation of an introduced host, the European green crab, Carcinus maenas, by a symbiotic nermertean egg predator, Carcinonemertes epialti. J Parasit 82:449–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Trivers RI (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campbell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  37. Unger LM, Sargent RC (1988) Allopaternal care in the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas: females prefer males with eggs. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 23:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Verner J, Willson MF (1969) Mating systems, sexual dimorphism, and the role of male North American passerine birds in the nesting cycle. Ornithol Monogr 9:1–76Google Scholar
  39. Vogel S, LaBarbera M (1978) Simple flow tanks for research and teaching. BioScience 28:638–643Google Scholar
  40. Williams JD (2000) A new species of Polydora (Polychaeta: Spionidae) from the Indo-West Pacific and first record of host hermit crab egg predation by a commensal polydorid worm. Zool J Linn Soc 129:537–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wittenberger JF (1981) Animal social behavior. Duxbury Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  42. Zeh DW, Smith RL (1985) Paternal investment by terrestrial arthropods. Am Zool 25:785–805Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Oregon Institute of Marine BiologyUniversity of OregonCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations